esxi_vm_register

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully scopes the mutation (inventory registration only, no file creation or overwrite), but says nothing about permission requirements, duplicate-name handling, or why the operation is flagged destructive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with a clarifying clause; no padding or repetition. It is terse, arguably to the point of under-specification, but there is no wasted language.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a destructive-flagged, non-idempotent mutation tool with 6 undocumented parameters, the description leaves too much unspecified — notably the dry_run preview default and path/identifier formats.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 6 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and largely does not. The critical dry_run parameter (defaulting to true) is never mentioned, nor are vmx_path format, datastore, expected_host, or request_id semantics; only the general notion of a VMX path is implied.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: registering an existing VMX into the ESXi VM folder and resource pool. The clause '不创建或覆盖 VM 文件' implicitly separates it from esxi_create_vm/esxi_ovf_import, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase '将已有 VMX' (an already-existing VMX) implies the precondition and distinguishes it from tools that create VM files, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative such as esxi_create_vm or esxi_ovf_import.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.